The Billings Gazettereports that a Montana man and his two wives have applied for a marriage license.

Claiming the Supreme Court’s decision redefining marriage allows for polygamy, Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone CountyCourthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage.

Collier, 46, said last week’s landmark ruling on same-sex unions inspired him to legitimize his marriage to his second wife. The trio has seven children of their own and from previous relationships

Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy. Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied. “It’s about marriage equality,” Collier said. “You can’t have this without polygamy.

Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied his application, and then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

The county attorney’s civil division chief, Kevin Gillen, said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expects to send a formal response to Collier by next week. “I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”

“Yet”?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made same-sex marriages legal nationwide. In his dissent Chief Justice John Roberts said people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26th decision toredefine marriage, the tax-exempt status of religious institutions is now in jeopardy.

Mark Oppenheimer, who writes the “Beliefs” column for the New York Times, leaves no room for doubt where his own beliefs are, as he opines, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion and non-profits.”

A self-described” gay-rights supporter,” Oppenheimer was “elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision.” The rest of us should prepare for what appears to be on the horizon as the two issues are mow brazenly linked.

In case you had any doubts, the assault on churches —- along with the schools, hospitals and various services they administer —- is in full bloom and comes in rapid succession to the court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

Katie Pavlich, in her Townhall column says it best: “Religious liberty is under attack in America and the next five years will serve as a battleground to protect or destroy it. If religious liberty is in fact destroyed, America will no longer hold onto one of the most important principles that makes it an exceptional nation more tolerant than the rest in the world. We are at a tipping point.”

In deciding to deny the petition for certiorari in the key election case Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, (backgroundhere) the United States Supreme Court has summarily decided that citizenship is of no consequence in voting in U.S. elections.

At issue was the question of whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with what has become known as the “federal form.” The form pertains to state and federal elections. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on an appeal of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court decision.

The 5-4 decision, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor a death penalty opponent, theatrically stated that the use of the drug midazolam leaves the prisoners “exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.” Sotomayor neglected to call attention to the victims of the criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to be worthy of the death penalty.

The Arizona Legislature was dealt an unfortunate blow in the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . At issue was whether an unelected “Independent” Commission should infringe on the Arizona Legislature’s ability to draw redistricting boundaries. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision sided with the appointed commission‘s authority.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority’s position “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.”

Speculation on opinions pointless since liberal justices vote as a bloc

Americans, as young studentshave been taught that the U.S. Constitution provides a separation of powers via three distinct branches of government. The Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive branch carries them out, and the Judicial branch evaluates them.

Our Founders created a Constitution with an ingenious and intricate system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent, yet coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly delineates the separation of powers —- creating a federal government with enumerated and limited powers, designed to keep government as close to the people as possible.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

James Madison stressed the necessity to reserve all possible authority in the states and people saying, “The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

With these thoughts as background, take time today to enlighten yourself by reading Andrew C. McCarthy’s heard-hitting assessment of the past week’s U.S. Supreme Court actions. Then brace yourself for those still to come on Monday.

Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee was the disappointing key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented in 2012, voted with the leftist majority today.

Justice Antonin Scalia, summarizing his dissent from the bench, correctly asserted, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” using the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States. Scalia accused his colleagues of twice stepping in to save the law from what he considered worthy challenges.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in the dissent, as they did in 2012. Joining Chief Justice John Roberts were the newly convinced Anthony Kennedy along with Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Fox News reports on the order issued by Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. McKee instructed U.S. officials to intercept a 34-year-old mother and her 12-year-old daughter on a plane Friday and immediately return them to the United States. The pair, in the United States illegally, were being deported to their native Guatemala.

“If the government is unable to intercept Petitioners at the airport, they must locate Petitioners in Guatemala and return them to the United States as quickly as possible,” Judge McKee wrote in his June 19 order.

The fact that the “Petitioners” are in the United States illegally is of no consequence to Judge McKee, nominated to the federal bench by Bill Clinton in March 1994. McKee was confirmed June 8, 1994 by a voice vote, rather than the usual roll call, so there is no record of which senators voted “yea” or “nay.”

The Third Circuit, based in Philadelphia, has appellate jurisdiction over the Districts of Delaware and New Jersey, and the Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Pennsylvania. It also has appellate jurisdiction over the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

In this 1:30 minute video clip, McKee discusses biases and concludes with this thought: “How in the world can we say that those [our] biases don’t affect our judgments?”

And all along Americans foolishly believed it was adherence to the law.